I am currently trying to set up a relational database (H2) that projects an object orientated structure of JAVA Model into the relational tables of my database. I am using the JDBC and H2 RDBMS.
So Here is my problem:
I have an object of type "attribute" that is supposed to be stored in the table "attribute". The owner of this attribute can either be an object of type "Function" or of type "Block" who both have a table on their own. One attribute-object can only be owned by one object (either function or block), making this a 1:n cardinality.
I am however struggling with how to include the owner in the attribute table. If I create a table named "ownerID" and store the ID of the owner (a globally unique ID btw) in it, the Database is missing the information about which table is containing this ID (even though its a GUID).
-Is it okay for example, to include another column containing the name of the table that the owner_ID belongs to ?
-another idea was to include one "functionOwnerID" column and one "blockOwnerID" and leaving one of them empty, but this seems like a rather dirty solution to me.
I hope my description of the problem was clear, and thanks in advance !
best regards,
Moritz
"Is it okay for example, to include another column containing the name of the table that the owner_ID belongs to ?"
That's how polymorphic relationships work! :)
Edit: (yes, you can do that and it's actually pretty common)
References:
(Rails/ActiveRecord Docs): http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#polymorphic-associations
(Laravel/Eloquent Docs): https://laravel.com/docs/5.4/eloquent-relationships#polymorphic-relations
Related
I have the following partial database design:
All the tables are dependent on each other so the table bvd_docflow_subdocuments is dependent on the table bdd_docflow_subsets
and the table bvd_docflow_subdocuments is dependent on bvd_docflow_subsets. So I thought I could me smart and use foreign keys on every table (and ON DELETE CASCADE). However the FK are being drilldown how further I go in to the tables.
The problem is the table bvd_docflow_documents has no point having a reference to the 1docflow_documentset_id` PK / FK. Is there a way (and maybe my design is crappy) that only the table standing above it has an FK relationship between the tables and not all the tables above it.
Edit:
More explanation:
In the bvd_docflow_subsets table information is stored about objects to create documents. There is an relation between that table and bvd_docflow_subdocuments table (This table stores master data about all the documents for an subset. (docflow_subset_id is in both tables). This is the link between those to tables.
Going further down we also got the table bvd_docflow_documents this table contains the actual document data. The link between bvd_docflow_documents and bvd_docflow_subdocuments is bvd_docflow_subdocument_id.
On every table I got an foreign key defined so when data is removed on a table all the data linked to that data is also removed.
However when we look to the bvd_docflow_documents table it has all the foreign keys from the other tables (docflow_subset_id and docflow_documentset_id) and there is the problem. The only foreign key needed for that bvd_docflow_documents table is docflow_subdocument_id and no other.
Edit 2
I have changed my design further and removed information that I don't need after initial import of the data.
See the following link for the (total) databse design:
https://sqldbm.com/Project/SQLServer/Share/_AUedvNutCEV2DGLJleUWA
The tables subsets, subdocuments and documents have a many to many relationship so I thought a table in between those 3 documents_subdocuments is the way to go were I define all the different keys for those tables.
I am not used to the database design first and then build it. But, for everything there is a first time, and I try to do make a database that is using standards and is using the power of SQL Server the correct way.
I'll address the bottom-most table and ignore the rest for the most part.
But first some comments. Your schema is simply a model of a system. To provide feedback, one must understand this "system" and how it actually works to evaluate your model. In addition, it is important to understand your entities and your reasons for choosing them and modelling them in the specified manner. Without that understanding all of this guessing based on experience.
And another comment. Slapping an identity column into every table is just lazy modelling IMO. Others will disagree, but you need to also enforce all natural keys. Do you have natural keys? It is rare not to have any. Enforce those that do exist.
And one last comment. Stop the ridiculous pattern of prepending the column names with the table names. And you should really think long and hard about using very long table names. Given what you have, I sense you need a schema for your docflow stuff.
For the documents table, your current PK makes no sense. Again, you've slapped an identity column into the table. By itself, this column is a key for the table. The inclusion of any other columns does not make the key any more "unique" - that inclusion is logical nonsense. Following your pattern, you would designate the identity column as the primary key. But ...
According to your image, the documents table is related to one and only one subdocument. You added a foreign key to that table - which matches the image. You also added additional columns and foreign keys to the "higher" tables. So now a document "points" to a specific subdocument. It also points to a specific subset - which may have no relationship to the subdocument. The same thought applies to the other FK. I have a doubt that this is logically correct. So why do these columns (and related FKs) exist? Perhaps this is the result of premature optimization - which everyone knows is the root of all evil coding. Again, it is impossible to know if this is "right" or even "useful" for your model.
To answer your question "... is there a way", the answer is obviously yes. You remove the columns of which you complain. You added them - Why? Is this perhaps a problem with the tool you are using?
And some last comments. There is nothing special about "varchar(50)". Perhaps this is a place holder that will be updated later. It may also be another sign of laziness. And generally speaking, columns with names like "type" and "code" tend to be foreign keys to "lookup" tables - because people like to add, modify, or remove these sorts categorization values over time. I'm also concerned about the column name overlap among the tables. "Location" exists in multiple tables, as do action_code and action_id. And a column named "id" (action_id) suggests a lookup to another table - is it? Should it be? Is there a relationship between action_id and action_code? From a distance it is impossible to answer any of these questions.
But designing a database is more art than science. Sometimes you just need to create something, populate it with some sample data, and then determine if it works for your needs. Everyone will get something wrong in the first try. That is expected; that is how you learn. The most difficult part is actually completing your first attempt.
I'm developing a small application using the Clarizen API. The documentation references "pickup tables" numerous times, but the description
"Pick up tables are similar to the Regular entity types. Pick up tables usually contain limited set of fields and limited number of entities and are referenced from the other types of classes."
is meaningless to me. I've been trying to figure out what a pickup table is from context, but I'm stuck there too.
Some example fields from the documentation:
Country | Entity | Represents country. | Reference to the pickup table “Countries”.
State | Entity | Represents lifecycle State of the entity. For example, possible states of the Work Itemobjects can be Draft, Active, Cancelled, Completed, On Hold. Value is a reference to Statepickup table.
These examples make me think it's just a static list (which doesn't fit their given definition of pick up table), but if so the list/table is not provided to the user so I'm not sure how I would make use of it. If it does in fact refer to a static list, I'm going to have to try to coax them into giving me the tables.
I can't find a definition of pickup table online, so if anyone here knows it would help greatly.
My guess is that it's another name for a junction table, or association table. There are only foreign keys that refer to primary keys in other tables.
Pickup tables are picklists. The values of the picklist are stored in mini-tables (not really sure why but doesn't seem to be that important).
The work item state example is an example of a picklist.
I have no problem with converting ER to SQL tables, but I don't know how can I convert EER to SQL tables?
as you Know that EER has "is a" specification and inheritance, but I don't know how relational databases can connect with inheritance specification
I'm not sure how to convert all the EER to SQL table in one user action, but this should work:
Right click on a table,
Copy the table creation script to clipboard,
Paste this script in the shell command.
This will create the table.
Hope this helps.
I'd say look into the Hibernate storage strategies.
Hibernate is an ORM system that persists objects in an SQL database. In the link that I sent you it gives you a table schema for how the storage strategy is persisted in the SQL database.
If you use Appfuse or Groovy it can generate these relationships for you.
Then you might want to map the schema into a CASE tool of some sort to turn it into an Entity Relationship Diagram.
Simplest answer is:
The subtype table will use id of supertype as their id. This will guarantee subtype 'is a' supertype, instead of subtype 'is associated with' super type.
There are other rules for you to convert EERD generalization/specialization hierarchies (if you are interested, reply and I will send you a link to learn about all rules). However, most of the cases, following two rules are going to work
Create a relation for a supertype, create each relation for each subtype, id of the subtype relation is the id of the supertype relation (this option generally work for all cases). Store all common attributes in the super relation, store only special attributes in the subtypes.
For "Disjoint Mandatory Specialization/Generalization Hierarchy", you could have the option to create a table for each subtype (without having to create a relation for the supertype).
Hope this helps.
I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal.. although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do.
I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it.
Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. These are all separate tables.
Example of Items are Pen, Stapler, Cushion, Tyre, A4 Paper, Plastic Bag, Poster, Decoration"
For instance a Poster may be allocated to a Person or Office or Building. In the future if they add a Conference Room table it may also be added to that.
My intital thoughts are:
Item
{
ID,
Name
}
LinkedItem
{
ItemID,
LinkedToTableName,
LinkedToID
}
The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code.
I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :)
Thanks!
It is not a good practice to store table names as column values. This is a bad hack.
There are two standard ways of doing what you are trying to do. The first is called single-table inheritance. This is easily understood by ORM tools but trades off some normalization. The idea is, that all of these entities - Person, Vehicle, whatever - are stored in the same table, often with several unused columns per entry, along with a discriminator field that identifies what type the entity is.
The discriminator field is usually an integer type, that is mapped to some enumeration in your code. It may also be a foreign key to some lookup table in your database, identifying which numbers correspond to which types (not table names, just descriptions).
The other way to do this is multiple-table inheritance, which is better for your database but not as easy to map in code. You do this by having a base table which defines some common properties of all the objects - perhaps just an ID and a name - and all of your "specific" tables (Person etc.) use the base ID as a unique foreign key (usually also the primary key).
In the first case, the exclusivity is implicit, since all entities are in one table. In the second case, the relationship is between the Item and the base entity ID, which also guarantees uniqueness.
Note that with multiple-table inheritance, you have a different problem - you can't guarantee that a base ID is used by exactly one inheritance table. It could be used by several, or not used at all. That is why multiple-table inheritance schemes usually also have a discriminator column, to identify which table is "expected." Again, this discriminator doesn't hold a table name, it holds a lookup value which the consumer may (or may not) use to determine which other table to join to.
Multiple-table inheritance is a closer match to your current schema, so I would recommend going with that unless you need to use this with Linq to SQL or a similar ORM.
See here for a good detailed tutorial: Implementing Table Inheritance in SQL Server.
Find something common to Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. For the lack of a better term I have used Entity. Then implement super-type/sub-type relationship between the Entity and its sub-types. Note that the EntityID is a PK and a FK in all sub-type tables. Now, you can link the Item table to the Entity (owner).
In this model, one item can belong to only one Entity; one Entity can have (own) many items.
your link table is ok.
the trouble you will have is that you will need to generate dynamic sql at runtime. parameterized sql does not typically allow the objects inthe FROM list to be parameters.
i fyou want to avoid this, you may be able to denormalize a little - say by creating a table to hold the id (assuming the ids are unique across the other tables) and the type_id representing which table is the source, and a generated description - e.g. the name value from the inital record.
you would trigger the creation of this denormalized list when the base info is modified, and you could use that for generalized queries - and then resort to your dynamic queries when needed at runtime.
I am just starting out with ADO.net Entity Framework I have mapped two tables together and receive the following error:
Error 1 Error 11010: Association End 'OperatorAccess' is not mapped. E:\Visual Studio\projects\Brandi II\Brandi II\Hospitals.edmx 390 11 Brandi II
Not sure what it is I am doing wrong.
I believe I can add some more clarity to the issue (learning as I go):
When I look at the Mapping details and look at the association, the column for operatoraccess table (from above) is blank and the drop down only includes field from the linked table.
The Entity Framework designer is terrible - I've had the same problem many times (and your problem too, Craig):
This happens when you have a many-to-one association which is improperly setup. They could very easily fix the designer to make this process simple; but instead, we have to put up with this crap.
To fix:
Click on the association, and go to the mapping details view.
Under association, click on Maps to <tablename>. Choose the table(s) which make up the many side of the relationship (ie. the table(s) which make up the *-side of the association in the designer)
Under Column, choose the table-columns which map to each entity-side Property. You get this error when one of those entries are blank.
I had the exact same problem and this is what I did to fix it.
Make sure you have an Entity Key set in your designer on the tables your making an association with. Also check that StoreGeneratedPattern is set to Identity for that Entity Key.
There's not a lot of information in your question, but, generally speaking, this means that there is an incompletely defined association. It could be that you have tried to map one table with a foreign key to another table, but have not mapped that other table. You can also get this error when you try to do table per type inheritance without carefully following the steps for implementing that feature.
Not sure of the answer, but I've just posted a similar question, which may at least help clarify the issue you are experiencing.
Defining an Entity Framework 1:1 association
I had to go back into the database itself and clarify the foreign key relationship
I had this problem in the case where I was creating both many to 0..1 and 0..1 to 0..1 associations. One entity needed associations to multiple tables, and that entity did not have foreign keys defined for those tables.
I had to do the table mappings step that is given in the accepted answer, but note that it wasn't only for many to many associations; it applied to all the types of associations I added for this entity.
In the Mapping Details view, I had to select the entity with the non-foreign key ID columns to the various tables. This is not always the "many" side of the relationship. Only there was I able to map the related entity property to the appropriate property in the original entity. Selecting the "destination" entity would not allow me to select the properties that I needed to, and the error would still exist.
So in short, I had to map using the table related to the entity that had the "non-foreign key" ID fields corresponding to the various entities' (and their tables') primary keys that I needed to associate.
Entity A
various other properties...
Id
ContactId
OrderId
etc.
Contact entity
Id
FirstName
LastName
etc.
In the mapping details, I selected Entity A's table. It then showed both ends of the association. I mapped its Entity A's Id property to its table's actual ID column (they had different names). I then mapped the Contact entity's Id field to the ContactId field on the A entity.
Simply select the many relationship table (*) from the Association>Edit Mapping & select the appropriate relationship